Search

In patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE), bradykinin causes swelling episodes by activating bradykinin B2 receptors. Icatibant, a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, is approved for on-demand treatment of HAE attacks. The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS; NCT01034969) is an ongoing observational registry initiated in 2009 to monitor the effectiveness/safety of icatibant in routine clinical practice. As of March 2019, 549 patients with HAE type 1 or 2 from the IOS registry had been treated of 5995 total attacks. This article reviews data published from IOS over time which have demonstrated that the effectiveness of icatibant in a real-world setting is comparable to efficacy in clinical trials; one dose is effective for the majority of attacks; early treatment (facilitated by self-administration) leads to faster resolution and shorter attack duration; effectiveness/safety of icatibant has been shown across a broad range of patient subgroups, including children/adolescents and patients with HAE with normal C1 inhibitor levels; and tolerability has been demonstrated in patients aged ≥65 years. Additionally, this review highlights how IOS data have provided valuable insights into patients' diagnostic journeys and treatment behaviours across individual countries. Such findings have helped to inform clinical strategies and guidelines to optimise HAE management and limit disease burden. This research was sponsored by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., provided funding to Excel Medical Affairs for support in writing and editing this manuscript.

BACKGROUND: The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) is an international registry monitoring the use of icatibant, a bradykinin B(2) receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. Our goal was to assess disease characteristics and icatibant treatment outcomes in patients with HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE type 1 or 2 (HAE-1/2)) from Spain relative to other countries participating in IOS. METHODS: Descriptive retrospective analyses of data are reported from 10 centers in Spain vs 51 centers in 12 other participating countries (July 2009 to January 2019). RESULTS: No meaningful differences were identified between patients in Spain (n = 119) and patients across other countries (n = 907) regarding median age at symptom onset (15.0 vs 12.0 years) or diagnosis (22.3 vs 20.5 years). Overall HAE attack rates (total attacks/total years of follow-up) were 2.66 in Spain and 1.46 across other countries. Patients in Spain reported fewer severe/very severe HAE attacks before treatment (41.0% vs 45.9%; P < 0.0001) and, for icatibant-treated attacks, longer median time to treatment (2.9 vs 1.0 h), time to attack resolution (18.0 vs 5.5 h), and total attack duration (24.6 vs 8.0 h). Use of androgens for long-term prophylaxis was higher in Spain (51.2% vs 26.7%). CONCLUSION: Patients with HAE-1/2 in Spain reported fewer severe/very severe attacks, administered icatibant later, and had longer-lasting attacks than did patients across other countries in IOS. These differences may indicate varying disease management practices (e.g., delayed icatibant treatment) and reporting. Efforts to raise awareness on the benefits of early on-demand treatment may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01034969.

PURPOSE: Phase 3 icatibant trials showed that most hereditary angioedema (HAE) (C1 inhibitor deficiency) acute attacks were treated successfully with one injection of icatibant, a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. We conducted a post hoc analysis of icatibant reinjection for HAE type I and II attacks in a real-world setting by using data from the Icatibant Outcome Survey, an ongoing observational study that monitors the safety and effectiveness of icatibant treatment.METHODS: Descriptive retrospective analyses of icatibant reinjection were performed on Icatibant Outcome Survey data (February 2008 to December 2012). New attacks were defined as the onset of new symptoms after full resolution of the previous attack. Potential associations between the patient and attack characteristics and reinjection were explored by using logistic regression analysis.RESULTS: Icatibant was administered for 652 attacks in 170 patients with HAE type I or II. Most attacks (89.1%) were treated with a single icatibant injection. For attacks that required two or three injections, the second injection was given a median of 11.0 hours after the first injection, with 90.4% of second injections administered ≥6 hours after the first injection. Time to resolution and attack duration were significantly longer for two or three injections versus one icatibant injection (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified sex, attack severity, and laryngeal attacks as significantly correlated with reinjection (all p ≤ 0.05). These factors did not remain predictors for reinjection when two outlier patients with distinct patterns of icatibant use were excluded.CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world setting, most HAE attacks resolved with one icatibant injection. There was no distinct profile for patients or attacks that required reinjection when outliers with substantially different patterns of use were excluded. Because new attacks were not distinguished from the recurrence of symptoms, reinjection rates may be slightly higher than shown here. Clinical trial identifier: NCT01034969.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) is characterized by recurrent swelling in subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. Symptoms often begin by age 5-11 years and worsen during puberty, but attacks can occur at any age and recur throughout life. Disease course in elderly patients is rarely reported. METHODS: The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) is an observational study evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of icatibant. We conducted descriptive analyses in younger (age < 65 years) versus elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years). Here, we report patient characteristics and safety-related findings. RESULTS: As of February 2018, 872 patients with C1-INH-HAE type I/II were enrolled, of whom 100 (11.5%) were ≥ 65 years old. Significant differences between elderly versus younger patients, respectively, were noted for median age at symptom onset (17.0 vs 12.0 years), age at diagnosis (41.0 vs 19.4 years), and delay between symptom onset and diagnosis (23.9 vs 4.8 years) (P ≤ 0.0001 for all). Median age at diagnosis was significantly higher in elderly patients regardless of family history (P < 0.0001). Throughout the study, icatibant was used to treat 6798 attacks in 574 patients, with 63 elderly patients reporting 715 (10.5%) of the icatibant-treated attacks. No serious adverse events (SAEs) in elderly patients were judged to be possibly related to icatibant, whereas two younger patients reported three possibly related SAEs. Excluding off-label use and pregnancy (evaluated for regulatory purposes), the percentage of patients with at least one possibly/probably related AE was similar for elderly (2.0%) versus younger patients (2.7%). No deaths linked to icatibant treatment were identified. All related events in elderly patients were attributed to general disorders/administration site conditions, whereas related events in younger patients occurred across various system organ class designations. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with C1-INH-HAE were significantly older at diagnosis and had greater delay in diagnosis than younger patients. Elderly patients contributed to approximately 10% of the icatibant-treated attacks. Our analysis found similar AE rates (overall and possibly/probably related) in icatibant-treated elderly versus younger patients, despite the fact that elderly patients had significantly more comorbidities and were receiving a greater number of concomitant medications. Our analysis did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.